From jjllambias@hotmail.com Thu Sep 06 09:14:58 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: jjllambias@hotmail.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_3_2_1); 6 Sep 2001 16:14:57 -0000 Received: (qmail 29896 invoked from network); 6 Sep 2001 16:01:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.26) by l8.egroups.com with QMQP; 6 Sep 2001 16:01:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO hotmail.com) (216.33.241.126) by mta1 with SMTP; 6 Sep 2001 16:01:02 -0000 Received: from mail pickup service by hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC; Thu, 6 Sep 2001 09:01:02 -0700 Received: from 200.49.74.2 by lw8fd.law8.hotmail.msn.com with HTTP; Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:01:02 GMT X-Originating-IP: [200.49.74.2] To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Bcc: Subject: Re: [lojban] the set of answers Date: Thu, 06 Sep 2001 16:01:02 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 06 Sep 2001 16:01:02.0834 (UTC) FILETIME=[20C9F520:01C136ED] From: "Jorge Llambias" la pycyn cusku di'e > > I don't think that follows. I think {lo te frica} is a property, > > not a person. > >I couldn't agree more, which why I object to your objection: {le mamte be >ce'u} IS a property (more accurately a function, but the general point is >the >same.) You seem to be saying that {le mamtA be ce'u} = {le ka makau mamta ce'u}. That's exactly the same type of confusion as between {le broda} and {le du'u makau broda}. Even if you take {le mamte be ce'u} as unevaluated, it does not refer to the function but to the value of the function. mu'o mi'e xorxes _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp